I should probably stop reading this book. However, my intent is to review it on Amazon and currently I am thinking I would like to warn people away from it. I don't want to do this without actually reading the whole thing, but finishing it is getting harder and harder.
The problems I've referred to before are the primary ones in the book - namely the fact that the authors seem to have a very weak belief in God (if in fact they have any at all) and they often seem to be attempting to actively undermine Christianity. However, the book is also riddled with typos (incorrect verse reference on pg. 72, for example) and contextual errors, such as in the second paragraph on page 103, which says:
Their hopes rest on the monarchy, but once again Israel squanders the time of divine favor. Even David is deeply flawed, and his sin with Bathsheba sets in motion a disastrous history of intrigue and violence. David's successors disappoint God, their subjects, and all future readers of their stories. Consequently, the kingdom is soon divided. The kings do not heed the prophets, and both Israel and Judah ultimately go into exile. The curtain of this sad narrative goes down with the return from exile of a few of those who have gone into exile. Hopes are high for the restoration of Israel and the fulfillment of God's promise of the land. But once again, the survivors must face the reality that the Davidic monarchy will not be reestablished, and Israel is not a mighty kingdom. At the end of this narrative, Israel has returned from exile and lives in hope that God will repeat in the future the great deeds of the past. Israel looks for a new Moses, a new exodus, a new David, and a new creation.
There is nothing wrong with the assertions in this paragraph (in fact, I chuckled a bit at the statement that "David's successors disappoint God, their subjects, and all future readers of their stories"); but the authors refer to "both Israel and Judah" at one point in the paragraph and then shift to simply "Israel." I can understand what they are saying, but it is sloppy, in my opinion, since calling out the divided nation in one sense leads the reader down the path of assuming that the 10 tribes (referred to as "Israel" when you are talking about both "Israel and Judah") "returned from exile" which isn't true at all. The authors therefore shift the meaning of the term "Israel" part way through the paragraph without informing the reader. You just have to know in order to follow them properly.
This would bother me less if it weren't for the sporadic off-hand references to remind us that the authors are "scholars." An example of this happens on page 106 where in the main text of the book we read:
Like the laws in the Pentateuch and like Ezekiel, both of which we will talk about a little later, the Chronicler underscores the importance of the Temple and its worship as symbols of God's abiding presence in Israel. The cult reminds us of God's abiding justice.
The last sentence seems out of place, but it is put in its place by a small gray explanation box right beside it in the book titled, "The cult..." which says:
Scholars do not often use the term "cult" in the popular sense of a religious group tightly controlled by a powerful leader. The more technical meaning refers to worship in the form of sacrifice of animals and other items, probably led by a priest, usually in a temple or other holy site. "Cult" in this book bears this second, technical definition.
This is simply a gratuitous use of "scholarly" jargon placed here in an obvious attempt to remind us of the fact that the writers of the book are, indeed, Scholars-with-a-capital-"S." I find writing like this to be a sort of intellectual bullying where you are reminding your reader not to disagree with anything in your discourse because of your advanced learning and their own ignorance. You can almost get away with such intellectual bullying if you pay very close attention to your writing and don't make obvious errors, but when you do make such errors as I mentioned before then you are like a schoolyard bully that trips on your shoelaces. It is not intimidating, just embarrassing.
